Poole v. Tibert

Poole v. Tibert

Summary judgment was appropriate to dismiss the defendants' claim that they overpaid for the vessel because no legal basis or sufficient evidence supported a remedy to "redo" the purchase; however summary judgment was inappropriate and must be refused on claims concerning an alleged 2006 oral agreement to include...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2011 NSSC 384
Parties
Plaintiff: Faye Poole; Defendant: Dennis Tibert; Defendant: Dana Pye
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract and Tort) / Summary Judgment on Evidence (rule 13.04)
Outcome
Plaintiff's summary judgment application allowed in part and dismissed in part; allowed as to overpayment claim for Fay Marie III, dismissed as to alleged sale of crab quota and alleged deficiencies/repairs to Fay Marie III.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Parol Evidence Rule, Misrepresentation (negligent Misstatement), Caveat Emptor, Sale of Vessel, Sale of Fishing Licenses and Quota, Damages, Parol Evidence Exception: Part Performance
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Contract Tort Property/fisheries Licensing Summary Judgment Parol Evidence Rule Misrepresentation (negligent Misstatement) Caveat Emptor +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faye Poole

Plaintiff

Dennis Tibert

Defendant

Dana Pye

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract and Tort) / Summary Judgment on Evidence (rule 13.04)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 2006 oral agreement to sell fishing licenses including crab quota existed and is enforceable
  2. 2 Whether parol evidence rule bars the defendants' claim that the crab quota was part of an earlier oral agreement
  3. 3 Whether the defendants overpaid for the vessel and whether a court can order a re‑do or recovery of an alleged overpayment

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was appropriate to dismiss the defendants' claim that they overpaid for the vessel because no legal basis or sufficient evidence supported a remedy to "redo" the purchase; however summary judgment was inappropriate and must be refused on claims concerning an alleged 2006 oral agreement to include the crab quota and on claims for repairs/misrepresentation because material facts, credibility and inferences are in dispute and must be decided at trial.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's summary judgment application allowed in part and dismissed in part; allowed as to overpayment claim for Fay Marie III, dismissed as to alleged sale of crab quota and alleged deficiencies/repairs to Fay Marie III.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application for summary judgment dismissing the defendants' claim of overpayment for the Fay Marie III is allowed.
  • Plaintiff's application for summary judgment in respect of the defendants' claim that the crab quota was part of a 2006 oral agreement is dismissed.